CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Could the universe have created itself?
Atheists claim that the universe doesn't need a Creator. So how do they explain how and why it exists? Without a Creator, the universe must have created itself. Of course, no rational person could ever believe something so ridiculous. Right?
Of course, no rational person could ever believe something so ridiculous.
Lol. Oh, of course buddy. When rational people find something they can't explain they automatically attribute it to an omnipotent bearded deity who lives in the sky. That's what rational people do. You've got us there.
When rational people find something they can't explain
They say they can't explain it.
they automatically attribute it to an omnipotent bearded deity who lives in the sky.
No one ever claimed God had a beard or "where He lives".
That's what rational people do.
Actually rational people see something and assume it got there somehow, and with no definitive answer, come up with multiple theories of "how", "who" or "what".
You also claim Satan is an alien god worth sacrificing goats to.
Of course, buddy. When someone denies the obvious reality of a Creator, they will believe anything. Even that the universe can create itself. LOL. Stupid doesn't even come close to describing such a person.
When someone denies the obvious reality of a Creator
Try to wrap your incredibly stupid mind around the fact that your delusional opinion about what is "obvious" counts for less than a fart in the dark. These "rational" people you seem so keen to associate yourself with only care about EVIDENCE. They do not care about your stupid superstitious beliefs from the eleventh century. Understand?
When I see a smooth rounded pebble on the beach I do not automatically assume it must have a creator simply because it looks pretty.
Do you know why?
It's because I'm not a ridiculously stupid retard. That's why.
Clearly you are the one who is retarded, because you are the one arguing that things cannot happen unless there is a creator who makes them happen. That isn't just stupid: it's demonstrably false.
Do you have any evidence that the universe did not create itself?
Then shut your incredibly stupid mouth please. You're not funny and you're not rational. You're a dangerously mad idiot who somebody -- in an act of malignant spite against the species -- has decided to permit access to the internet.
I have no need of evidence, since there is no evidence that it happened or is even possible. There is absolutely no evidence that something can create itself. In fact there is plenty of evidence that it's scientifically impossible.
Clearly you are the one who is retarded, because you are the one arguing that things cannot happen unless there is a creator who makes them happen. That isn't just stupid: it's demonstrably false.
In other words you are unable to tell us why being a moral relativist.
Morality has nothing to do with your idiotic ideas of how causality works you incessant bitch tittied fanny licker. You are merely retarded enough to believe that something which is a social construct can be a law of the universe because God is the one who socially constructed it based on his own subjective sensibilities. God also thinks it's objectively moral to bash infant brains and sell women into sex slavery.
There is no substantive logically coherent non-sophistic argument for why some being needs to create things in order for them to exist. Where is the proof or at least some semblance of a reason why I should believe that magical consciousness coupled with infinite power and wisdom simply popping out of it's own ass hole and intelligently designing the universe is the only way for anything to exist just because you have bought into archaic superstitions invented by primitive troglodytes and you decide to have faith in it?
Tsk tsk Nom. I've already explained to you why linking the waterfall is dumber than dumb, on top of some more dumb. The waterfall link's info changes with every post I make.
Secondly, you made no point, and there are no posts of mine that support your lie.
I've already explained to you why linking the waterfall is dumber than dumb
And he's explained to you why telling barefaced lies about him and calling your own Facebook profiles "proof" is dumb. When you offer dumb, you get dumb back. People who aren't dumb understand that, so I guess that leaves us with only one possibility for why you don't.
Look at the debate score. Just look at all the idiots who believe that the universe created itself! If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.
I never claimed that the universe created itself. My claim is that anyone who claims to know something no human truly knows just because an equation or worse yet a 2000 year old scripture tells them so is an idiot.
I never claimed that the universe created itself. My claim is that anyone who claims to know something no human truly knows just because an equation or worse yet a 2000 year old scripture tells them so is an idiot
Cool. I can always tell the people who haven't really studied it. There's a reason Hitchens never used anything similar to your arguments when he debated Theists.
Ahahahahaha! Firstly, the universe isn't conscious. Secondly, your statement is a denial of the theory of evolution, in which conscious, sentient beings developed from non-conscious single-celled organisms.
Why are you so stupid bronto? You're literally borderline retarded.
Secondly, your statement is a denial of the theory of evolution
Not actually. Evolution is simply the slowed down process of a conscious mind developing other conscious minds. Evolution is like looking at a computer program and breaking it down into millions of codes and slowly observing said codes one by one over time.
Only physical things need to be created. God is not physical, therefore He's eternal. Anyway you slice it, the universe requires a Creator. And that Creator would have to be eternal. Otherwise you would have an infinite regression of causes. Something that science tells us is impossible.
It makes a lot more sense than the universe creating itself from nothing.
It doesn't make any more sense to me, because God creating itself from nothing is no different than the universe creating itself from nothing except you add the extra impossibility of something very complex and intricate (God himself) popping out of nothing rather than a mere dense ball of fluctuations.
Nothing physical can be eternal. In order for something physical to exist, it had to have been created by someone who is eternal. God exists outside of time and space. He has no beginning and no end. I don't understand how it's possible, but He's GOD. He can do anything He likes. The alternative is that the universe created itself from nothing. That makes no sense at all. It's a scientific impossibility. When you have excluded the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
I understand where the believer in a god comes from regarding this question but have you considered the many alternatives explanations put forward by those credible scientists and others , for one here is what Stephen Hawkings said on the subject ......
"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature," he wrote.
That still doesn't explain away the possibility that God created that proton-size singularity, then flipped the quantum- mechanical switch that allowed it to pop. But Hawking says science has an explanation here, too. To illustrate, he points to the physics of black holes — collapsed stars that are so dense, nothing, including light, can escape their pull.
Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.
Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."
"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
A scientific answer, maybe. Events cannot occur without time and space for them to occur in. However, such constraints are eliminated when an all powerful God is involved. Since it is physically impossible, that leaves only a supernatural explanation.
Events cannot occur without time and space for them to occur in.
Hello again, G:
Quantum physics says a thing can be in two places at once.. No, I don't get it either, but I believe it.. Here's the real mindblower.. I used to believe, as you know, that the big bang NEEDED a thing to start it.. I kept on and on about a singularity.. I could get that..
But, today, quantum physics says the Universe COULD have created itself.. I don't get that at all, but I TRUST science.. Science is so great.. Even at my advanced age, I'm still learning..
Even if that's true, what about the physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material universe. Without them, the universe could not exist. They are not composed of matter or energy. Why do they exist? Quantum physics cannot explain them. Nothing can... with one exception.
You would have to agree that the same thing is true about a naturalistic origin of the universe. There is no evidence that it happened that way, or is even possible. There is also no way to prove that there isn't a God. So where does that leave us? It means that both positions are a matter of faith. Which is what I've been saying all along, and atheists flatly refuse to admit.
It means that both positions are a matter of faith. Which is what I've been saying all along, and atheists flatly refuse to admit.
A belief in a god is based of faith which means it’s based on spiritual conviction and nothing else if that’s good for you and others fine , as I’ve said earlier my honest answer is I don’t know which is not based on faith but the simple fact that I admit on this question I just don’t know
A belief in God is based on faith. But that faith is based on evidence. Some of that evidence is from eyewitness accounts. They were present when Jesus performed His miracles. They witnessed His death and resurrection. They suffered inprisonment, torture and death because they stood by their eyewitness accounts. No one would die for something they knew to be a lie. Therefore, they told the truth. Now. Do you have any evidence to contradict this historical account?
The twelve apostles, for one. They were not fictional characters. They were real people who witnessed it all and wrote it all down.
I've already answered this. They claimed that Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. They also suffered torture and death rather than deny a risen Christ. Once again, no one would die for a lie.
Did anyone else witness Mohammed splitting the moon in two?
Yes there were witnesses to Muhammad splitting the moon in two so do you accept it as fact if not why not?
The miracle of the splitting of the moon occurred before the migration to Medina (2) upon the demands of the polytheists with the permission of God and it was shown by the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as narrated by many companions like Anas b. Malik (3), Hz. Ali, Huzayfa b. Yaman (4), Abdullah b. Mas’ud (5), Abdullah b. Abbas (6), Abdullah b. Umar (7), Abdullah b. Amr b. As (8), Jubayr b. Mut’im (9) (May Allah be pleased with all of them). (10)
Among Quraish polytheists, Walid b. Mughira, Abu Jahl. As b. Wail, As b. Hisham, Aswad b. Abdi Yaghus, Aswad b. Muttalib, Zama b. Aswad, Nadr b. Harith and others (11) said to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH):
“If you truly are a Prophet that has been appointed by Allah, then split the moon in half. Let it be in such a way that one half will appear over the Mount Abu Qubais and the other half will be seen over Mount Quayqian.”
The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) asked:
“If I do it, will you become Muslims?”
The polytheists answered:
“Yes, we will.”
On the 14th night, when it was full moon, the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wanted Almighty Allah to give him the miracle which the polytheists demanded from him. (12)
When the Gabriel (AS) informed the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that God had accepted his prayer, he announced it to the Meccans. The polytheists witnessed the splitting of the moon on the 14th night. (13)
When Almighty God let the moon split in half, one half standing over Mount Abu Qubais and the other half over Mount Quayqian, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shouted at Muslims:
“O Abu Salama b. Abdulasad! Arqam b. Abi’l Erqam! Bear witness! (14)
It is a historical fact that Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile who instructed his followers to lie in order to promote the spread Islam. These are hardly credible witnesss. Also, such an event would have been witnessed by the entire world. Notice that no one else recorded such an event. Your evidence is quite laughable. Try again?
It is a historical fact that Mohammed was a murderer and a pedophile who instructed his followers to lie in order to promote the spread Islam. These are hardly credible witness.
Indeed , what did Christians do to spread Christianity?
Also, such an event would have been witnessed by the entire world. Notice that no one else recorded such an event. Your evidence is quite laughable
But Jesus resurrected would have been the talk of society show me where anyone else recorded the event?
Your “evidence” is most amusing , no cigar try again
They spread the good news of a risen Savior, while facing the threat of imprisonment and death. That's how.
Show me His body. The Roman Empire did its best to stop the spread of Christianity. In fact, the more Christianity is persecuted, the the more it spreads. How did Christianity spread throughout the known world against the best efforts of the most powerful empire in the worlds best efforts to stop it? All they had to do was show His dead corpse.
Apples and oranges. You are trying to equate the physical universe to God. The universe, being a physical entity, requires a beginning. God does not. Also, the universe cannot be eternal because of the existence of time. If you have an infinite number of yesterdays, then tomorrow would never get here.
The excuse that God is not physical is merely a cop out, you are simply saying it doesn't need an explanation because causality only applies to physical things. If so, then how can you even claim to know what lies beyond the physical plane and how it got there? If there is a realm beyond causality itself then anything you claim to know of it is the musings of a primitive physical monkey so fuck off with your assertions about it being any particular deity.
Are you familiar with the universal physical constants? They are immaterial, yet they affect the material. They are not matter or energy. The only reason we know they exist is by seeing how they interact with the physical universe. There are six of them that are responsible for the existence of the universe. If any one of them had a slightly different value, the universe would not exist. Where did these immaterial forces come from if not from God?
Translation: one rule for me. The opposite rule for you.
You are trying to equate the physical universe to God.
I'm doing no such thing you utterly stupid fucking retard. God doesn't even exist. I'm saying that if you want to skip over the question of what created God by claiming he has always existed, then one can equally do that with the universe itself. It doesn't need to have a creator because it has always existed. What is complicated to understand about that you raving mad lunatic?
Oh just fuck off. I'm not even entertaining your stupidity this afternoon. I've better things to do.
No they don't, IDIOT. How could energy exist before the universe did? Energy is a property of the universe so obviously it doesn't predate its own cause.
Scientists claim that energy has always existed. Atheists seem to have no problem with this.
I don't necessarily believe that either just because it works on paper. Besides, what is more likely to have "always existed"...pure, raw energy or a fully developed sentient being with a fully developed ego and the power to construct universes from scratch?
Energy is more fundamental than consciousness, thoughts require energy in order to even exist.
The universe, the full extent and complexity of which is still to be discovered, must have been created by some form of hyper intelligence.
How else could all this immeasurable, ever expanding mass have come into existence?
We know, or at least we think we know that nothing from nothing = nothing and nothing plus nothing = nothing, right?
So, why are we expected to believe that nothing plus nothing = something, i'e., the Cosmos.
Equally, the same argument applies about the existence of a hyperactive, super-natural intelligence;- * FROM WHERE DID THIS SUPERNORMAL PHENOMENON ORIGINATE?
Your second point is valid only in the physical universe, which God created. What makes you think He would be subject to the laws of His creation? God had no beginning. No one created Him.
I feel that when considering such a complex issue the best we mere mortals can do is cast our net wide and keep an open mind.
In our finite world where almost everything is tangible and has a life cycle/span most of us have difficulty imagining an infinite macrocosm which never had a point of creation and will will exist for eternity.
I assume the supernatural force to which you refer is the Christian God.
If so, isn't that a little arrogant?
What about the 100s of millions of people of different faiths who worship other Gods
Are you saying 1.8 billion Muslims are all exalting a false God?
I don't particularly think that this much praised, unknown, unseen hyper-intelligent force would be subject to our laws of physics and could not have always been present and always will be.
But then, why should I or anyone else believe in such an outlandish theory.
Indeed, how and why should anyone subscribe to such a quirky hypothesis?
As no one has ever proven beyond a doubt the origins of the Cosmos my standpoint is;- I'm hedging my bets and will accommodate an array of beliefs including the existence of a God-( no point in taking unnecessary chances), the theory of the Big Bang and the ensuing process of evolution on earth.
In all cases the best anyone can do is try to convince us on blind faith that their explanation for the creation of the universe is the true version of events.
Those who can present the most persuasive and convincing solution to the unsolved mysteries of all that's in the universe will enjoy the greatest following.
Translation: let me begin rambling on like the narcissistic, mentally ill nincompoop you have come to know me to be.
The universe, the full extent and complexity of which is still to be discovered, must have been created by some form of hyper intelligence.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Priceless. So "looking at this from more than one angle" is, to you, making arbitrary statements of fact completely absent any form of evidence to support them? You're hilariously mad. The extent of your mental illness is quite jaw-dropping.
Time has a direction and it goes forwards. As it goes forwards it adds stuff to what was there before. There is nothing mystical about that process. It's just the way the universe is built and it has nothing to do with a creator. Nobody has to "create" volcanic eruptions, tectonic plate shifts or anything else in the natural world. They happen because of two things: probability and time.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Priceless. So "looking at this from more than one angle" is, to you, making arbitrary statements of fact completely absent any form of evidence to support them?
Yes, we fully understand how you come at the idea of how reality started.
Why did you feel the need to describe your mindset to us?
I assumed the first line was representative of the rest of your standard bullshit so I took a sharp RIGHT-hander back into the world of realism and sanity.
Remember a little while back I predicted that you'd swallow my baithook line and sinker again?
Well, GOTCHA.
Roars of laughter from the back stalls.
You just can't resist the responding to the allure of my literary genius.
